Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Property Tax Initiative topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Roosevelt County commissioners say property-tax cap initiative pulled but likely to return

Roosevelt County Board of Commissioners · June 10, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Commissioners reported that a state-level property-tax ballot initiative that would have limited county property-tax increases has been withdrawn from signature gathering; they warned it could return during the legislative session and noted local budget impacts and low election turnout.

A Roosevelt County commissioner told the board June 9 that a state constitutional initiative to cap property-tax increases — described at the meeting as “initiative 134” — has been pulled from signature gathering and will not reach this year’s ballot but is likely to return during the legislative session.

The commissioner said the initiative, as discussed in district meetings, would have limited property-tax growth (a proposal the speaker said would have capped property tax increases at about 2%) and would have left school levies untouched. At the meeting the commissioner estimated that the change would have reduced county revenue by about 20% and therefore would have required cuts to county services if enacted.

Commissioners warned that ballot-language appeals can obscure downstream effects because school levies were carved out of the proposal. One commissioner noted that many voters do not understand how property-tax receipts are split between school districts and county government and that a cap focused only on non-school portions would not reduce school taxes.

The discussion also touched on primary turnout: the board noted Roosevelt County’s turnout was about 22.37% (1,332 votes cast of 5,952 registered voters), below the statewide primary turnout cited by participants. Speakers at the meeting said signature-gathering firms had been funded to advertise and collect signatures and that opponents had raised legal and technical objections about the initiative’s structure.

Board members framed the current withdrawal as a temporary pause by the initiative sponsor, saying the issue could reappear in the legislature where citizens, businesses and officials can weigh in on proposed statutory or constitutional changes.